• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I think Clinton has posed some fair question to Trump. do you agree?

Here is a list of questions HRC ask Trump. Are they fair questions?

  • yes

    Votes: 15 75.0%

  • no

    Votes: 5 25.0%
  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
DifferentDrummr said:
I'd be happy to see her answer many of them, but not all of them apply.

She certainly hasn't "spent her life unscrupulously looking out for her own wallet above all" or she would have pursued any number of jobs that are far more lucrative than SoS.

Nor has there been any time when she "compulsively damaged relationships with crucial allies to preserve her own ego."

And of course, she released her tax returns.
Click to expand...

She hasn't? According to her, she was flat broke when she and Billy left the WH. Now by any account her net worth is in the hundreds of millions. What other job could she do with that kind of return?
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
She released a document from her doctor today that was up to date. More than Trump has released. Speaking of Trump, did you know he is the thread topic? Your CDS is showing again.
Click to expand...

Unless I'm mistaken the OP concerns both Hillary and Donny. Since the OP doesn't differentiate the two, it's difficult to separate the two.
 
Sparky2 said:
It's almost uncanny.
Ironic, even.

As an objective independent, I would sincerely love for Hillary Rodham Clinton to answer each and every one of those questions herself.
Exactly as they are posed in that web link there.
Just change 'Trump foundation' to the 'Clinton foundation'.
And leave everything else, including money transactions with Russia, and Saudi Arabia, and other 'bad players', just as they are.

I think a lot of people would love for that to happen.

Let's hope that the debates (if they ever even take place, given the state of health of Mrs. Clinton) will press those issues and more onto both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and that the moderators are fair and even-handed.

Finger crossed, sincerely.
:peace
Click to expand...

exactly what i was going to say
 
I am not going over the questions...I just don't care enough about them. Though any question is a fair question - why would it not be?

What I will say is that I think Trump is a buffoon and Clinton is pathetic...BUT what someone does on their own time is no one else's business (so long as it is legal).

I would like to see Trump's tax returns - because I assume he is worth FAR less then he claims. But whether he is rich or broke has no bearing on how good of a POTUS he will be.

The (practically) only thing I care about is where the candidates stand on the issues.
 
Fair questions?
"1. Will you sever ties with your company linked to foreign leaders, questionable organizations, and criminals if you become president?"

Do you still beat your wife?
Criminals? Does that mean he can't be friends with the Clintons any longer?


What's the point of one lying sleaze demanding the other lying sleaze answer questions? Her questions are unfair and his answers will be lies. They are both beyond hopeless and that's what we've been told to pick from.
 
Celebrity said:
Do you think she will ask Trump to meet her halfway? I bet there are certain questions neither of them want to answer, and an HRC/Trump compromise is not off the table.

It seems like she is trying to sell the election as the difference between someone who's qualified for public office (herself) and someone who's qualified for private enterprise (himself).
Click to expand...

I'd like to see that happen, but my guess would be that it won't.

It's not a bad tactic on her part to use her knowledge of how Washington works as a selling point for her candidacy. Presidents who don't know this never accomplish squat.
 
Sparky2 said:
Given the staggering amounts of cash that the Clinton Foundation has collected from a variety of foreign entities, many of whom were paid back in kind in political favors by Mrs. Clinton, do you really honestly believe what you just typed, dear?
:shock:
Click to expand...

I do, sweetcakces, because it's logical. Something the right wing loves to lay claim to but never demonstrates.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
I do, sweetcakces, because it's logical. Something the right wing loves to lay claim to but never demonstrates.
Click to expand...

Man.
Thank God I'm not a right-winger.

I embrace logic (and good science) and apply it to all my daily endeavors.

So, back to my earlier point;
And logically, given that there are staggering amounts of cash that the Clinton Foundation has collected from a variety of foreign entities, many of whom were paid back in kind in political favors by Mrs. Clinton, the logical conclusion is an inappropriate (for a, at the time, sitting Secretary of State) quid pro quo 'pay for play' situation.

You do agree, don't you?
It's quite clear for all to see.

:shock:
 
there is nothing hillary can do now.. she is caught

she was caught when she pushed for muslims with the corrupt media

she put the nail in deep when she said trumps voters are deplorables

and caught more with the tapes about her and powell

ITS OVER FOLKS.... UNLESS hillary is replaced
 
Sparky2 said:
Man.
Thank God I'm not a right-winger.

I embrace logic (and good science) and apply it to all my daily endeavors.

So, back to my earlier point;
And logically, given that there are staggering amounts of cash that the Clinton Foundation has collected from a variety of foreign entities, many of whom were paid back in kind in political favors by Mrs. Clinton, the logical conclusion is an inappropriate (for a, at the time, sitting Secretary of State) quid pro quo 'pay for play' situation.

You do agree, don't you?
It's quite clear for all to see.

:shock:
Click to expand...

how can you embrace science when you don't understand how logic cannot be learned?? same as a human with 2 eyes cannot be learned to have 8 eyes
 
SailaWay said:
how can you embrace science when you don't understand how logic cannot be learned?? same as a human with 2 eyes cannot be learned to have 8 eyes
Click to expand...

You posted a curiously non-scientific, highly opinionated statement there, friend.

Logic can most certainly be learned.
As can, albeit at a historically slower pace, common sense.

Both human qualities are, admittedly, inborn in some of us.
But you can guide, develop, and even teach logic and common sense to even the most dense of students.

And on another note, and no offense, but English grammar, capitalization, and letter-case can also be learned.

Just saying......
:shock:
 
Sparky2 said:
You posted a curiously non-scientific, highly opinionated statement there, friend.

Logic can most certainly be learned.
As can, albeit at a historically slower pace, common sense.

Both human qualities are, admittedly, inborn in some of us.
But you can guide, develop, and even teach logic and common sense to even the most dense of students.

And on another note, and no offense, but English grammar, capitalization, and letter-case can also be learned.

Just saying......
:shock:
Click to expand...


you failed a logic test...... with not understanding what makes LOGIC

and you failed to understand that grammar rememberers comes from memory intellect which is the low value wisdom.. which is copying like a parrot

inventors.. predictors have the highest true wisdom... logical thinking ability at the high level


logical thinking ability is NOT LEARNED and can NOT CHANGE..... the level of the ability controls what change can come.... so change and learning comes from the ability and cannot be changed
 
SailaWay said:
you failed a logic test...... with not understanding what makes LOGIC
and you failed to understand that grammar rememberers comes from memory intellect which is the low value wisdom.. which is copying like a parrot
inventors.. predictors have the highest true wisdom... logical thinking ability at the high level
logical thinking ability is NOT LEARNED and can NOT CHANGE..... the level of the ability controls what change can come.... so change and learning comes from the ability and cannot be changed
Click to expand...

That is your curious opinion, and I will respect it by saying, "That is your curious opinion, and I respect your right to express it."

Here's the John Nash rub though;
At some point, you need to articulate your strongly-held opinions in a manner that appeals to your audience of English-speaking web forum visitors.

You need to convey your message in a fashion that the web forum visitors will find palatable, enjoyable, and interesting.

As it is, (and again, no offense), you ramble in a nonsensical way far too often, and your refusal to obey even the most fundament rules of grammar, punctuation, and capitalization renders your message lost in the noise and chaos.

Just a friend offering friendly advice, buddy.
Think about it.
:(
 
Sparky2 said:
That is your curious opinion, and I will respect it by saying, "That is your curious opinion, and I respect your right to express it."

Here's the John Nash rub though;
At some point, you need to articulate your strongly-held opinions in a manner that appeals to your audience of English-speaking web forum visitors.

You need to convey your message in a fashion that the web forum visitors will find palatable, enjoyable, and interesting.

As it is, (and again, no offense), you ramble in a nonsensical way far too often, and your refusal to obey even the most fundament rules of grammar, punctuation, and capitalization renders your message lost in the noise and chaos.

Just a friend offering friendly advice, buddy.
Think about it.
:(
Click to expand...

you failed a logic test.. which proves you do not have that ability..... same as a blind person failing a vision test... they should not try to do an ability they don't have

its like this.... the center position on a football team trying to do the QB ability..... then failure will come... this is how logic works predictions will be made that are correct... you harm yourself trying to do that ability that you don't have...
 
Sparky2 said:
That is your curious opinion, and I will respect it by saying, "That is your curious opinion, and I respect your right to express it."

Here's the John Nash rub though;
At some point, you need to articulate your strongly-held opinions in a manner that appeals to your audience of English-speaking web forum visitors.

You need to convey your message in a fashion that the web forum visitors will find palatable, enjoyable, and interesting.

As it is, (and again, no offense), you ramble in a nonsensical way far too often, and your refusal to obey even the most fundament rules of grammar, punctuation, and capitalization renders your message lost in the noise and chaos.

Just a friend offering friendly advice, buddy.
Think about it.
:(
Click to expand...

This is a person with logic high enough to MAKE HIM understand

///////////////////////


Chomsky says that language (linguistic Intelligence) is innate. If that is the case even the other intelligences (according to Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligence theory) spacial intelligence, kinaesthetic intelligence, inter-personal intelligence, intra-personal intelligence, musical intelligence and logical intelligence should also be innate. All the intelligences are the result of human cognition. If that is the case even other intelligences should be innate.
 
Sparky2 said:
Man.
Thank God I'm not a right-winger.

I embrace logic (and good science) and apply it to all my daily endeavors.

So, back to my earlier point;
And logically, given that there are staggering amounts of cash that the Clinton Foundation has collected from a variety of foreign entities, many of whom were paid back in kind in political favors by Mrs. Clinton, the logical conclusion is an inappropriate (for a, at the time, sitting Secretary of State) quid pro quo 'pay for play' situation.

You do agree, don't you?
It's quite clear for all to see.

:shock:
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by "inappropriate." Did she break any laws? If so, I want to see proof.

Besides, it doesn't follow that SoS would be more of a cash cow than some other effort that she could have pursued.
 
Sparky2 said:
It's almost uncanny.
Ironic, even.

As an objective independent, I would sincerely love for Hillary Rodham Clinton to answer each and every one of those questions herself.
Exactly as they are posed in that web link there.
Just change 'Trump foundation' to the 'Clinton foundation'.
And leave everything else, including money transactions with Russia, and Saudi Arabia, and other 'bad players', just as they are.

I think a lot of people would love for that to happen.

Let's hope that the debates (if they ever even take place, given the state of health of Mrs. Clinton) will press those issues and more onto both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and that the moderators are fair and even-handed.

Finger crossed, sincerely.
:peace
Click to expand...

I totally agree. Most of those questions are reflection from her life.
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo

I'm sorry...but if anyone takes a woman that cant even remember having a security clearance training in her entire federal service, that is on record as a blatant bold faced liar, that doesnt know what C stands for on Classified message traffic, that had a basement server that has apparently been hacked by foreign entities, a woman that got people killed and then lied about it, that has lied about such banal **** as getting shot at and having to take evasive maneuvers...hell...that is so ****ing petty that she has to lie about her own NAME....if you take her seriously and think SHE is justified in asking ANYONE questions regarding "national security risk"....

well...lets just say that might say a lot about you.
Click to expand...

My favorite... Diane Reynolds.
 
SailaWay said:
This is a person with logic high enough to MAKE HIM understand
///////////////////////
Chomsky says that language (linguistic Intelligence) is innate. If that is the case even the other intelligences (according to Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligence theory) spacial intelligence, kinaesthetic intelligence, inter-personal intelligence, intra-personal intelligence, musical intelligence and logical intelligence should also be innate. All the intelligences are the result of human cognition. If that is the case even other intelligences should be innate.
Click to expand...


With all due respect to Noam Chomsky, you are describing theories, not facts.

I stand by my earlier points;
Logic can be learned, though not by every single human being.
But an illogical young man or woman of reasonable intelligence can eventually begin to think, operate, and communicate in a logical fashion, if taught and mentored in the appropriate fashion.

And apparently, (thank you for taking the time, good sir), men and women can be inspired to obey even the most fundament rules of grammar, punctuation, and capitalization.

Here (below) are innate talents and gifts, in my opinion, and in my observation;
Things that some people will be able to do, things that many others will never be able to do, no matter how hard they apply themselves.
A short and partial list of things that you are either born with, or you aren't:

* Self-awareness.
* True compassion.
* The ability to play a musical instrument effortlessly and instinctively.
* The faculty for being a good airplane pilot or helicopter pilot.
* The mind (and patience) for being an accountant.
* Surprisingly, LEADERSHIP.

Those are innate.
Caveman, primordial, genetic human talents and skills and societal outcomes that are either in the DNA or they aren't.

But most humans can eventually learn logic.
To some degree or varying degrees.

:)
 
Sparky2 said:
With all due respect to Noam Chomsky, you are describing theories, not facts.

I stand by my earlier points;
Logic can be learned, though not by every single human being.
But an illogical young man or woman of reasonable intelligence can eventually begin to think, operate, and communicate in a logical fashion, if taught and mentored in the appropriate fashion.

And apparently, (thank you for taking the time, good sir), men and women can be inspired to obey even the most fundament rules of grammar, punctuation, and capitalization.

Here (below) are innate talents and gifts, in my opinion, and in my observation;
Things that some people will be able to do, things that many others will never be able to do, no matter how hard they apply themselves.
A short and partial list of things that you are either born with, or you aren't:

* Self-awareness.
* True compassion.
* The ability to play a musical instrument effortlessly and instinctively.
* The faculty for being a good airplane pilot or helicopter pilot.
* The mind (and patience) for being an accountant.
* Surprisingly, LEADERSHIP.

Those are innate.
Caveman, primordial, genetic human talents and skills and societal outcomes that are either in the DNA or they aren't.

But most humans can eventually learn logic.
To some degree or varying degrees.

:)
Click to expand...


see you get proven wrong and you still don't care about facts.... its really not hard to understand this.. which proves your logic is low ... same as a blind person trying to read a sign.. they just don't have the ability and they cannot learn to SEE

pitiful that you waste your time being wrong on something so easy to understand

answer this question.... can a born blind person LEARN TO SEE??... see its a joke to NOT understand this.. its EASY
 
SailaWay said:
see you get proven wrong and you still don't care about facts.... its really not hard to understand this.. which proves your logic is low ... same as a blind person trying to read a sign.. they just don't have the ability and they cannot learn to SEE
pitiful that you waste your time being wrong on something so easy to understand
answer this question.... can a born blind person LEARN TO SEE??... see its a joke to NOT understand this.. its EASY
Click to expand...

Friend SailaWay,

You cannot prove anything on the internet.
You can only provide sufficient credible evidence to support a position or opinion.
And then you must present said evidence in a credible, coherent fashion.

Typing in correct English helps if you wish to accomplish that goal.

So, I disagree that you have proven me wrong in any form or fashion.
It just never happened, good sir.

To answer your question;
A person born blind can learn to perceive many things that a person with sight cannot perceive.
But no, a person born blind can not learn the medical, phsyiological sense of sight.

Now, if you will, allow me to pose a question to you, sir.
You don't have to answer if it's too personal, and I would understand if you don't want to answer.

Is there more than one person at your house or apartment with log-on rights to your SailaWay account on this web forum?

Because I can't help but notice that you sometimes post using the proper rules of English grammar, punctuation, and capitalization.
And then there are times that you do not.

Are you actually one person or two?
Just an honest question.

Thanks in advance.
:)
 
I would like see serious answers to all those questions.

And right after that happens I will take my 28 year old new wife out to dinner to celebrate her tenth year anniversary as the Playboy Centerfold of the Month in our new Bentley.
 
haymarket said:
I would like see serious answers to all those questions.

And right after that happens I will take my 28 year old new wife out to dinner to celebrate her tenth year anniversary as the Playboy Centerfold of the Month in our new Bentley.
Click to expand...

Why would Playboy publish a centerfold shot of her in your new Bentley? Seems like the car would conceal far too much... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom